Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5663789" data-attributes="member: 82106">I'm not sure what you mean. Scaling is just a matter of how many skill bonuses do you have and how do they stack, so that's not really an issue worth debating, it can easily be fixed in 4e as it is (well, relatively easily) and presumably some kind of '5e' would handle this better.I'm not at all understanding what the 'style' is and how that is different from what Mike proposes. Both systems are "Skills are ability checks with some sauce" and other aspects would really be dependent on details like what the skill list looked like, which we can't really say. Yes, that was what I meant. They actually ARE meaningfully similar though, it isn't just 'seeming' to be the same. An item for instance can contribute a bonus to both a skill and to-hit and it means close to the same thing. A skill check can be made against a defense, etc. Hit points and such are not really nearly as relevant, the method of use for skills and attacks are different, but HOW they interact with the system is identical. This similarity means that both systems can usually be taken into account in the same way by various rules. Bonuses and penalties can be applied and understood in the same way. This saves a substantial amount of rules fiddliness.  Well, I would just say this. Many of the comments I've made might potentially be irrelevant in a significantly different system with different combat mechanics. I'm a bit leery though of a system where there are 2 different ways to be 'better' at something. That seems like 1 too many ways to scale something. It means every single place in the game where you now have a simple defense number or attack bonus now needs 2 pieces of information, and every time someone develops some game element that affects those things they have to start asking themselves if it is a numeric bonus they want or a change in difficulty level. On such things do systems founder, regardless of good intentions.If it was up to me I would stick with the simpler system unless there was an overwhelmingly compelling reason not to. KISS. Lessons learned hard in the process of building things many times more complicated than game systems. Maybe I make much of little. I'm not sure. I just don't get the 'good warm fuzzy feeling' from this, and I have learned to trust that instinct.</blockquote>

Verification